In a bid to circumvent Parliament, the vote will be carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which means it will not beregulated under election laws or subject to regulations on misleading campaign material.

The anti-gay marriage lobby is not wasting time in exploiting the latter, with an anti-gay marriage lobbying group launching in the country this week.

The Campaign for Marriage launched this week, urging voters to reject equal marriage by promoting a laughable list of apparent consequences of the decision, brazenly spreading outright falsehoods.

Firstly, the group is warning that if equal marriage becomes law, thousands of children will come out as transgender.

It claims: There is increasing evidence that the removal of gender from marriage and the removal of gender from society more broadly are inextricably linked.

In countries where marriage has been redefined, an acceptance of gender fluidity is backed by law and government policy.

This begins with the concept of gender fluidity being taught in schools.

The group claims that this will lead to a 4000% increase in children coming out as transgender.

Its far from the only misleading statement, with the groups website also claiming that faith-based schools that refuse to teach homosexuality and gender identity issues are being faced with closure.

The Coalition for Marriage claims:When marriage is redefined, there are consequential changes in education programs and policies in schools, and parents are increasingly excluded from having a say in the sex education of their children.

It claims: In countries where marriage has been redefined, optional programs like Safe Schools have become compulsory.

Following the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Canada, the school curriculum changed to introduce increasingly explicit content to children. This program is mandatory, even in faith-based schools.

If youre not sure about how changing the definition of marriage will affect what your children and grandchildren are learning in school, vote no.

Meanwhile, the group claims that letting two people of the same sex get married will lead to restrictions on churches.

It says: The impact that redefining marriage will have on the religious freedom of every day Australians is an area of great significance to the millions of people of faith in this country.

Concerns about the freedom of religion extend far beyond whether an individual minister of religion or celebrant is required to solemnise a same-sex wedding.

It has to do with what faith leaders will be able to preach, what schools and parents will be able to teach, and how every day Australians will be able to conduct their businesses in accordance with their beliefs.

The group is also claiming that equal marriage will lead to employees being compelled to participate in LGBTI pride events at work.

It says: There are also the informal restrictions on free speech, with television and radio outlets refusing to broadcast views which promote traditional marriage, to say nothing of boycotts and even threats of violence against those organisations which express either a pro-marriage or even a neutral stance on this issue.

If youre not sure how the redefinition of marriage will affect your rights to free speech, vote no.

LGBT campaigners had long warned that a public vote on equal marriage would lead to misleading homophobic nonsense.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten told the PM: I hold you responsible for every hurtful bit of filth that this debate will unleash not because the Prime Minister has said it, not because he agrees to it, he clearly doesnt. But because the Prime Minister has licensed this debate.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work,

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."